Ethical Reflection

I wrote my ethical essay on how it is unethical to continue to test on animals. My first draft was a little short so for the final draft I lengthened it and took out any unnecessary paragraphs and information that did not belong. Also, for my final draft, I fixed some sentences to make them more clear as to what I was talking about. I did some more research for my final draft and added in some extra information to help get my point across even better. The comments that were left on my first draft helped a lot to make my final draft better and I followed all of them to hopefully make a good final draft.

Ethical Essay

Nicole Marsh                                                                                                            Marsh 1
Mr. Brown
English 1B
15 April 2013

Animals Have Feelings Too

Animal testing, also known as vivisection, is the experimentation on live animals for scientific reasons. By using animals for testing it allows new human medical treatments to be discovered and can even be beneficial for other animals. However, the results from such experiments are not always reliable and cause injury and most of the time even causes death to the animal being tested. Many people may think that animal testing is a positive and helpful thing when in reality it is immoral to inflict any type of injury or pain on another creature, whether it is a human or that scary but harmless rat living in your attic. In the U.S., the Animal Welfare Act, which became effective in August of 1966, requires that the testers use tranquilizers in any experiment that causes pain. Although the animals may not experience the pain at the time, in the end, they are all bound to die. Animal testing is wrong because it violates the freedom of animals, also known as Animal Rights.
Millions of animals such as mice, rabbits, birds, monkeys, rats, and even cats and dogs are being used in scientific testing. It is estimated that approximately fifty to one-hundred million vertebrae animals are being used annually for scientific testing. Not all experiments can give us reliable information. When people picture cosmetic products being tested on animals, they probably picture putting blush on a guinea pig or mascara
on a rabbit. Most people probably don’t realize the harsh reality of what is really taking place. For example, the Draize Eye Test, which assess eye irritations, has been doubted for several reasons. In this test, a substance is placed in the eye and is then evaluated every twenty-four hours for up to two weeks. The problem with this test is that the structure of the cornea of the eye of the rabbit differs greatly than the cornea of a humans. Another reason to doubt this type of test is because rabbits do not produce as many tears as humans do. With a smaller amount of tears being produced, it allows the irritants and chemicals to remain in the rabbits eye longer, causing even more irritation and therefore it causes more suffering to the animal. In most of these tests, the rabbits eyes are held open with clips to prevent them from blinking to flush out the test chemicals. In most situations, these rabbits are killed after this experiment takes place.
  Another type of test done on animals is repeated dose toxicity. In this test, scientists try to determine how much of a certain chemical is needed in order to create toxic effects on various organ systems. This test includes oral, dermal, and inhalation of repeated doses over a twenty-eight day period. The animals are then killed at the end of the experiment and are then evaluated for signs of damage on any of their organ systems. This test is not the most reliable because the size of a small animal varies greatly from the size of a human therefore there is greater variation of how chemicals are absorbed and metabolized by different species. In this case, you cannot accurately scale the amount of toxic chemicals it takes for negative effects to occur from a small creature to a human. The amount of chemicals it takes to have toxic effects on a small animal greatly differs from the amount it would take to harm a human.
Just like humans, animals have rights too. These animal rights try and protect them from abuse by humans and the ability to live freely. Many animal rights advocates strongly believe that animals should be viewed as people. There are many organizations out there that protest against the unfair treatment of animals. One of the largest animal rights organization is PeTA, people for the ethical treatment of animals. Their motto is, “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” PeTAs founder told Vogue Magazine that even if a cure for AIDS was found due to animal testing, PeTA would still oppose it. Millions of animals are killed each year because scientists are constantly doing some sort of experimentation on them. Sure, finding a cure for AIDS would be an amazing advancement in medicine for people, but what about all the animals killed in the process of doing so? Don’t they also deserve to live the longest and healthiest life possible? The answer is yes.
Another group that is against animal testing is the American Liberation Front or the ALF. This particular group takes matters into their own hands. The ALF organization takes a direct, but illegal, action to stop animal abuse. These activists will remove animals from farms and laboratories, destroy facilities where abuse takes place, and even set up safe houses for the animals to receive the proper care that they deserve. Although this group may not be going about it in the best way, they are left with no other option when regardless of animal rights, scientists continue to kill animals every year.
In conclusion, it is unfair and unjust to test and kill millions of animals for experiments that may not even be beneficial to humans due to the variations between animals and humans. Animals have feelings too and can feel when they are being abused and treated unfairly. Although some people may argue and say that it’s better the animals than humans, wouldn’t it be best if it were neither of those? With all the money and effort put into finding new tests, or new ways to kill animals, I believe that they should use that money and time to create a new way to do these tests without killing anyone or anything.

A Small Place by Jamaica Kincaid

1. Why does she say that tourists are ugly?
2. Can tourists actually hurt a place as Kincaid suggests?
3. Are the English really to blame for everything in Antigua?

I was a little bit confused as to what Kincaid was trying to argue in her writing, if arguing anything at all. I thought it was an interesting read and I did enjoy reading it. I am going to address question number two, "can tourists actually hurt a place as Kincaid suggests?" I have been a tourist to many different places. In my last trip to Maui, I soon learned that not all the locals are very fond of the tourists, which is understanding. They crowd their beaches and streets, their home, which I can see that as being annoying. However, I think tourists are helpful in ways such as bringing money in for that particular place. Just as Kincaid says in her writing, we all at one point become tourists. She goes on to say that a reason the natives do not like the tourists is because it reminds them that they are too poor to be a tourist themselves in another place other than their home in Antigua. Throughout the excerpt, she goes on to say that the English are to blame for the way Antigua has changed over the years. I believe that tourists can have a big part on how a certain place is, however, I do not think that they can be blamed for changing an entire island. The reason people travel is to experience different parts of the world and their cultures, not to try and change the way the natives live.

Commentary for Natasha Marsh

Overall, I thought she did a good job with her paper. Maybe putting some background information about the author would be a good idea to add. I like how she gave information on waterboarding and why it is used. In the second paragraph, second sentence, she says "...word choice, and other textual cues." If I'm not mistaken there was a typo with cues and it should be turned into clues. I think maybe she could give more examples from the writing and maybe strengthen up her paragraph about logos. I also think Natasha should use examples of opposing views to help her argument. Her conclusion paragraph should be stronger and maybe sum up her point of view and Hitchens' article more. I like how she explained what each strategy of ethos, pathos, and logos does and gives good examples of each throughout her essay. I thought her essay clearly got her point across and was overall well written.

Regarding The Pain Of Others

1. Should war photography of the injured and killed be allowed?
2. If so, to what extent?
3. Do these types of photos have a negative effect on society?

After reading Susan Sontags "Regarding the Pain of Others," I feel like I should go ahead and answer the first two questions- should war photography of the injured and killed be allowed and to what extent? I believe that it is not fair the victims family to have a photograph of their loved one dead for everyone to see. Nobody wants to remember their family or friend in that type of way. Although making war photographs and videos public for everyone and anyone to see can maybe gain more support for the military, it is unfair for the families of the fallen soldiers to have those types of pictures going around. I agree with Sontag when she says that the need for humans to document these actions are obscene and unnecessary. Knowing people in the military, it would break my heart to see my loved ones lying in the battlefield with gun shot wounds and no longer breathing.

Rhetorical Analysis

Nicole Marsh          Marsh
Mr. Brown
English 1B
22 March 2013

Rhetorical Analysis for “Believe Me, It’s Torture”
In the article, “Believe Me, It’s Torture” by Christopher Hitchens, which was published in Vanity Fair in October 2011, he discusses his view of waterboarding and how it should be defined as torture. Hitchens states that “…if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.” Christopher Hitchens graduated from Oxford in 1970 and became a British-American author, literary critic, and journalist. He was known for his anti-theism and atheism and was a believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism, and reason. Throughout his article Hitchens effectively uses the strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos to help make his argument stronger and persuade his audience.
In this article, Hitchens argues whether or not waterboarding is a form of torture and gives many reasons as to why it should be considered as torture. His piece starts out by stating that people are being trained to resist but not to inflict torture. He goes on to illustrate his setting leading up to his “capture” and his experiment with waterboarding, describing the peacefulness of the sunny day before he begins his waterboarding journey. He then goes into great detail of what it feels like to be water boarded through his own personal experience. He states that it doesn’t stimulate drowning and that you are in fact drowning. Throughout his piece, he is implicitly stating that waterboarding is a form of
Marsh 2
torture and he is successful at doing so by vividly going into detail about his own experience with waterboarding.
In this piece, Hitchens uses the strategy of ethos. Ethos focuses attention on the writers’ character as it is projected in the message. With this strategy, the writer creates a trustworthy persona. Hitchens uses this approach by having a lot of knowledge on the background of his topic and by actually having a personal experience with waterboarding. By sharing his participation with waterboarding, he is able to get a good
look on what is actually feels like and is therefore better able to persuade his audience that it is, in fact, a form of torture. Hitchens is able to give us an inside look on what waterboarding feels like, which can be successful in persuading his audience even more than just giving examples from other people would. Having a lot of knowledge on the issue and having a firsthand experience with waterboarding, it allows his readers to trust him and believe him about the argument he is attempting to get across.
Another strategy portrayed in “Believe Me, It’s Torture,” is pathos. The write uses pathos to engage the reader on an emotional and or imaginative level. He effectively does this by using descriptive language to give his reader a vivid image of what waterboarding is like. “The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face,” is a perfect example of how Hitchens uses pathos in his writing. It gives the reader a more clear perspective on how it feels to be tortured in such a way. It also connects the reader with the speaker in a way that they feel as if they are the ones who are being water boarded. His audience can imagine how terrible a feeling it must be to have an object being
Marsh 3
clamped over your face, restricting your breathing to almost none. The use of pathos makes it seem more real and can be very useful in persuading an audience.
Hitchens also uses the strategy of logos to make his argument more clear. Logos uses reasons and evidence to support a claim. This strategy also includes unspoken assumptions. Although Christopher Hitchens does not directly say that waterboarding is torture, the reader can conclude that Hitchens truly does believe that waterboarding is a form of torture. He gives many reasons as to how waterboarding should be defined as a method of torture. For example, Hitchens says, “…it stimulates the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning- or rather being drowned…” and to most people, being drowned and not having the ability to breath properly would be considered torture.
The final strategy that is used in his piece is kairos, which is the appeal to timeliness or the appropriateness for the occasion. “Believe Me, It’s Torture” was published in October of 2011. This was a good time for this article to come out because in this century, many people may not be too aware that waterboarding is still taking place, especially at this time. Hitchens article helps to educate people about this form of torture and how it is still going on in this day and age.
In conclusion, Hitchens uses a variety of different strategies of ethos, pathos, logos, and even kairos to help get his argument across. There is no better way to try and persuade his audience that waterboarding is a form of torture than to have a firsthand experience with it. He was successful in persuading his readers to agree that it is torture. After reading his article it opened up my eyes on the subject and made me change my
Marsh 4
perspective on waterboarding and see that it really is a form of torture and not just a means to extract information, sometimes even junk information.

"What's So Bad About Hate" by Sullivan

1. Is a "hate crime" worse than just a "crime?"
2. What causes someone to hate another person because of their different religion, sexual orientation, skin color, etc.?
3. Can people use the word "hate crime" to justify their actions?

I believe that except for the color of their skin, a black person is no different from a white person. So what causes someone to hate another person because of their different religion, sexual orientation, or even skin color? We may never understand the reason behind it. Just as Sullivan mentions in his article, hate is everywhere. Because someone has a different religious view or a different sexual orientation, it does not affect the way we, ourselves live. If a man wants to date another man or a women wants to date another women, what harm does it do to us? I agree with Sullivan when he says that because we are a free nation, there will be hate. Because there are so many people, there will always be disagreement and prejudice between other people.